Is The Apple iWatch On The Way?

Or is this just a bit of "I wish they would do that" kite flying from someone who used to work for Apple?

For what we have is a long blog post from Bruce Tognazzini about what he thinks an iWatch should contain, what it would be worth having on one and why he wants one.

He runs through what extant alternatives like the Pebble already do. And then starts to ponder what it could be that would make a killer product, of the sort that Apple actually attempts to make.

The iWatch will have a few functions it performs entirely on its own, chief among them being telling you the time. It’s chief role will be that of office manager, facilitating and coordinating your use of your other iDevices and the Internet by gathering data, delivering messages, storing and forwarding, coordinating tasks, and carrying out functions that extend the capabilities of your other devices. The iPhone or other primary device will be the executive in charge, making the decisions, setting the strategy, and apportioning tasks.

I do have to admit that I'm not quite seeing it. Requiring a device to manage your devices? That sounds like the beginning of a descent into madness to me: to the point that we'll need a device to manage the device which manages our devices.

The two killer applications are neither sexy nor fun, but they will make our lives so much more pleasant.

Passcodes. The watch can and should, for most of us, eliminate passcodes altogether on iPhones, and Macs and, if Apple’s smart, PCs: As long as my watch is in range, let me in! That, to me, would be the single-most compelling feature a smartwatch could offer: If the watch did nothing but release me from having to enter my passcode/password 10 to 20 times a day, I would buy it.

OK, that sounds interesting enough. But I'm not entirely convinced by it I have to say.

Find iPhone.

A variation on the current system. You just ask your watch where your iPhone is.

My problem with this is that I just don't quite see them being "killer apps", I really don't. One of the things I do find is that those who make tech often think that we schmoes out here want to be able to use tech in the same way that they do. Sometimes this is indeed true: but very often it isn't. There are all sorts of things that various smartphones, computers, tablets and so on do that not one in 100 of their users care about. Or even know about to be honest.

But Apple may see a potential replacement for its dwindling iPod business. To replace that, the iWatch would have to generate more than a billion dollars per quarter on average. In the three months over Christmas, Apple sold 12.6m iPods, generating $2.14bn, a fall of 18% in volume, at an average price of $169.

But as a controller accessory to an iPhone, an iWatch would be able to attract buyers who already have iPhones and iPads – who number more than 300m, according to Apple's own data. That could drive a huge spurt of sales to early adopters. Tognazzini suggests that an iWatch would handle music – as the Pebble already does. To generate a billion dollars in revenue would require selling 10m at $100 each in a quarter – or fewer, if the device had a higher price tag.

The size of Apple. Sure, that's a reflection of past success and well done to them for having achieved it. But to make any difference to a company of Apple's size those are the sorts of numbers that we're talking about. And do we think that there are really 10 million people a quarter who want a watch that will let them access their iPhone without remembering the code? Or who need to be reminded where their iPhone is?

I would have to say that I'm unconvinced.

But then I wouldn't let my opinion sway Apple's actions. I'm still mystified by the attractions of Pokemon for example.